Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SIYA RAM versus STATE OF U.P. THRU' SECRETARY REVENUE LUCKNOW AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Siya Ram v. State Of U.P. Thru' Secretary Revenue Lucknow And Others - WRIT - A No. 67231 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 21238 (15 December 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

     Court no. 7                                                        

           Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 67237 of 2006

Krishna Gopal                      versus       Prescribed Authority/Civil

                                                               Judge (Senior Division)

                                                               Budaun and others.

Hon'ble Rakesh Tiwari,J.

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Rent Case No. 5 of 2003 before the Prescribed Authority/ Civil Judge (Senior Division), Budaun against respondent no.2.Respondent no.2 has filed his written statement denying the allegations made therein to which the petitioner has also filed reply.

According to the petitioner, the aforesaid case is ripe for final hearing but respondent no.2 is frequently changing counsels and is seeking adjournment after adjournment which the Court below has readily allowed with minor costs and is not deciding the case.

If a party frequently changes counsels according to the Officer presiding the Courts and is seeking adjournment several times to delay dispensation of justice there has to be a limit to such tactics adopted by a party.

The only prayer of the counsel for the petitioner is that a direction may be issued to the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Budaun to decide the aforesaid case within a time bound frame fixed by this Court.

Since the petition is not being decided on merit, the Court does not deem necessary in the circumstances to call upon the respondent to file counter affidavit.

For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is disposed of finally with a direction to the Prescribed Authority/Civil Judge (Senior Division), Budaun to decide the aforesaid case by a reasoned and speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of six months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.  If necessary the Court below may proceed to decide the case on day-to-day hearing basis. No order as to costs.

Dated 15.12.2006

CPP/-

             

 


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.